It must have been annoying as a kid or teenager, when our ears easily reached that frequency. Could you hear the 18'Khz (? or close to) F.M. stereo radio 'carrier wave' when you listened to F.M. radio at under say, 30/35'ish yrs old? I heard F.M. stereo as a young kid & teen, & I just didn't notice it or hear it due to equipment frequency response or maybe I was conditioned to 'not hear it' like the brain can ignore & almost blot-out a constantly ticking clock with much familiarity to it, as F.M. stereo was often played by my folks when I was a kid. Our dad tested his & our family's hi-end response when he got into hi-fi, me & my sister (12 & 16 yrs old respectively) got to around 19,500 on the test-L.P.s frequency tracks (tho it becomes more like a pressure on the eardrum up there) our mother almost the same, while my dad was annoyed he heard nothing after about 14,500 Hz. Children & women* (*to an older age than men can hear higher frequencies much better
Not only that HF notes you may not hear, played solely, may cause pain and discomfort, they surely become audible when modulated on a note that you can surely hear. Try play any note in any area where the ears are very sensitve and add the 19kHz.....or even 22kHz that most people say we can't hear.....and listen to the note......its now played with an clear audible "change" to it. This convinced me that the overtones above "hearing limit" in music are just as important as the bandwith we normally accept as audible.
I confirmed the the importance of crossover upgrades and the synergy of the components you choose. I replaced all the capacitors and resisters of my Linton and I ended up buying a new pair, because I don’t like the new sound. it’s so obvious. after I got my new pair of Linton and I actually AB test them, the upgraded one is significantly different sounding than the original ones (so my impression after upgrade was correct), I gain a lot more details after the upgrade, but I also change the sound signature of the Linton. this time, I will slowly change the caps and resisters bits by bits instead of everything at one time so I can actually adjust the sound and know which one is not my taste
You measured a 21 year old speaker, and the on-axis response was still within +/- 1.5 dB up to around 18 kHz. It would probably be a little worse without the 1/3 smoothing, but still, quite impressive. The cheesy parts were still doing their job after 21 years. And btw, you made the horizontal directivity slightly worse in the important 1-3 kHz range. Will it be audible? Perhaps, but the deviations are quite small. More measurements would be needed to get the full picture.
I had the M22’s new, and they sounded absolutely amazing with various quality power amps. I didn’t see any glaring problems, very smooth, and an extended airy high end. Very stable rock solid image, dynamic, and powerful. Never fatiguing no matter what I threw at them. A great speaker for $5-600 a pair used. Dare to do better. As is the M20.
Years ago I replaced the parts in my crossover for my old college speakers. I bought a set of Cerwin-Vega D7's in college in the 80's. I replaced the binding posts, put high end parts and high quality wire. I also put some type of damping material in it. I didn't bypass the fuse or pots for the mids and tweeters. I'm sure it would sound better redesigning the crossovers if I knew how. I'm happy with what I have when I play them with high end electronics. It's much better than what it was.
I have a pair of these In Service. The Woofer had been reconed using hard Carbon fibre cone/dome and decent foam. These cabinets really require a significant level of bracing and internal corner backup. Dampening helps, but removal of the 'fuse' CB protection and dodgy pots would be a positive. The thing is... they will always be loud and brash.... more of a semi-pro PA than HiFi... hardly worthy of being driven by a decent HiFi.
When I was 20 years old I can hear up to 22 five. I could point out every ultrasonic node department store without even looking it would drive me crazy. Now 48 years later, I can barely hear up to 13 five and that’s from an audiologist so I know I’m correct. Guns, rock ‘n’ roll, loud cars, driving with the windows down all screwed my hearing up.
I’m done at 12K. My right ear is basically midrange-only. My left ear is super sensitive, as it compensates for losses in my right ear. Too many Marshall stacks in my 20s and 30s. Those will destroy your hearing faster than just about anything.
I've watched ALL your upgrades videos, Danny, and, as an engineer myself, I am full of questions like "What is it that Danny is doing that the design engineers aren't?" or "What part of the design process did they skip or flat out miss?" or "How is it that Danny can, in a relatively short amount of time, knock the socks off what the design engineers did in probably 10x the time?" Your thoughts, Danny? My first guess would likely be centered on (your) experience-based engineering versus (their) schooling-based engineering. What can we DIYers do better to improve our designs like you consistently show? It's obviously more than just correcting frequency response. Would love to hear you discuss your thought process in more detail as you go about correcting these crossover components. Well done!
my guess is that many of them are given a price point thats impossible and they just want to keep the job. big names sell based on name recognition so the sales happen regardless in most cases. alex jones is a case in point of how you can do both price and design on a budget.
Some of it is based on budget restraints, but a lot of it is simply lack of experience. Finishing college classes and being given a certificate (been there) doesn't trump real world experience in a field, especially decades of study in a field. I see a lot of stuff that are simple fixes if you simply know what to do. One of these days I will film the whole process.
@@dannyrichie9743 Thank you! Looking forward to it. I'm a mechanical engineer and I have totally seen the same thing in my field. I have come to realize that when a person graduates, they are the most dangerous because they feel smart, but without a lot of practical experience to back up their judgement. It comes with time if you keep at it, but you end up realizing that many of the "good ideas" for how to design in school just aren't going to happen due to budget or schedule constraints and you have to learn the "street smarts" of your industry to get the job done quickly and effectively. From my experience, another piece of the puzzle could also be: designing to specifications. That has pros and cons. If the spec-manship of the product was done well, then the product is usually high-quality in the end, but this requires a very knowledgeable individual and probably a higher budget. If requirements have been left out (either by ignorance or business decisions), then you can expect an inferior product to some level.
@@dannyrichie9743 I would love to see a video on how you design. I’ve learned to treat cones and acoustic/ mechanical resonances first before a crossover is designed. It makes crossover design easier.
@@dannyrichie9743 Ah ok. I recently bought some small ones from Sonicraft on y’all’s recommendation. I made a 34hz in line filter just now. The improvements in the vocal region are undeniable. Thanks Danny!
Overtones are critical in defining the music. One of the reasons I always liked square waves for testing. Any rounding or slopes are contrary to clarity.
@@paulb4661 Impelling the motion of a mass always results in rounding. Physics demands a delay in response. In particular upper frequencies, it becomes ever more obvious since the movement through time is requiring the inertia of that mass to be negated and reversed by power inputs immediately. That is never spot on. Very Newtonian. This was the inception of going to plasma speakers. Extremely low mass problems but SOOOO many others.
@@dennisbohner6876 Precisely, then add issues related to combining multiple sources with LCR filtering in a typical speaker and you end up with a real mess. Informative in bench testing of amplifiers, but providing heartbreaking results with speakers at best.
@@paulb4661 Dealing with lightspeed adjustments to retain wave forms are much easier in the electronic domain. Now if we could directly pump that into our brain, bypassing our ears' limitations and.... golly! it's Nirvana for real.
Even if I don't hear it directly, high frequencies add "airyness" to what I hear. So those speakers would sound "airy" to me. Problem being, my children will run from the room with their hands over their ears. And you can bet that peak can damage the hearing of children too young to express their discomfort. What Richie said falls exactly in line with what I've been saying for decades. I've heard good measurements sound bad, but I've never heard bad measurements sound good. When buying audio, start with good measurements and then give it a listen. Which I suppose is a good segue into a comment about equalizers. Most equalizers will add multiple capacitors in the signal path, and that causes smearing similar to that of caps in a crossover. Unfortunately, I currently know of no equalizer that does not smear the signal. not that there's none out there. I'm sure there is. I just haven't heard it. Equalizers are definitely one of those units that can have great specs, but still sound bad.
I'm quite sensitive to EQ transparency too, I likely own more EQs than any other type of gear. I have a dozen quality pieces and about two dozen EQs in total. Every system can benefit from EQ'ing the LF below the transition. The challenge is the cure can't be worse than the symptom! An EQ must possess adequate transparency. I've had success with my Meyer and Apogee parametric EQs. I've got multiple Ashley EQs, Velodyne DSP EQ, SVS DSP, Audio Control, dbx, Rane, inexpensive Behringer and several others. There's expensive mastering EQs that don't trash the signal, Manley, SPL, GML, Weiss.
With the Capacitor in the bass signal path: it should beta so called „GHP“ or „Closed Box High Pass filtered“ Design? In this config the cabinet should be closed so that the high pass filter could work well to increase bass reproduction in low end.
RIP Mr Dodd. I didn’t know that he was no longer with us. I remember hearing one of his battery powered amps. I think it was using el84’s but not completely sure and around 15 wpc. Might have been using a pair of your speakers. What I do remember is that it was really good
The 5khz peak is the one which is fatiguing. The 19khz you can’t hear to save your life at your age Let alone 18 or even 17khz without it being seriously attenuated.
That tweeter they use has a serous design resonance probably the cone material I have noticed in other reviews similar results on mainly tweeters at the high end
This makes total sense to me now . Just got a Nad M33 and Dali epicon 2 speakers . It sounds pretty good but my head feels like it’s under pressure and I can’t handle it . But cant hear any harsh ness . Thanks for the explanation.
Recently purchased a Dali Opticon 1 MK2 and within its seems and quality limits it seems pretty good overall. For a small speaker, the bass is there, its tight and fast but definitely doesn't take the stage. very mid centric and the highs have a bit more density and less airiness that I am used to. It can come across as a bot bright with some glare at times and wonder if they could have done better with the crossover. In comparison, I tried the Menuet SE and while it could float sounds a bit better, with less glare and brightness, they got rid of so much detail that even with better resolution, it didn't sound as good overall. Big difference in price but I'd take the Opticon over the Menuet just for the detail and versatility, it works in both near and midfield, is easier to drive and sounds decent for the price I paid. I would consider upgrading the crossover for a few hundred if it really improves the SQ though it isn't bad as it is. I wouldn't call it relaxing, rather more engaging. Still getting used to it and during some passages there can be that pressure one may feel., but it does alot more right than wrong.
Interesting, I’ve experienced that head pressure issue when using DSP EQ to force a flat room room response in a bad room. I concluded it was a result of trying to fix the room nulls with boost. The speakers end up moving a lot of air trying to beat the null but the room still cancells most of the sound out and I think you feel that room pressure although you can’t hear it at the listening position. Not sure if this helps you in any way but food for thought.
Suggestion for the next video like this; it would be great to get an explanation as to what is happening to the sound with cheap crossover parts vs. higher quality parts of the same value. As in what about them measures differently and what is their contribution and impact on the speaker as whole.
@@dannyrichie9743 Apparently lol. I guess missed that, thanks! I guess the one thing that could be expanded on is some sort of visual representation of what is happening. I had a basic electronics understanding before DIY audio so I get discharge rates and saturation values with electrolytic caps and iron inductors. Higher quality poly caps and foil inductors are just better in terms of discharge and saturation which I can get behind. Still not sure I quite understand what a better quality resistor is doing though (did I miss it in the video?). UA-cam being a visual medium visuals of the components impact on the signal would be interesting to see. I know thats not something you typically do with your objective measurements but it might go a long to getting the concept across to people with no prior awareness of capacitor and inductor characteristics.
Another record- breaking sight for my eyes. Along with the biggest inductor i'd ever seen put before a domestic commercial speaker's bass driver's input, for good or bad(?) ...looks exactly like a 350VA mains transformer, in shape & size. (minus secondaries) on my 1972'ish made B&W DM70 e/stat hybrids, now waiting for a re-panel (it's panel- energizer mains transformer & hi-pass is elsewhere on board) And the record biggest (in pic's or life) 2 output transformers, choke & mains tyranny (itself 11" inch high & 7" & 6" girth came to me on 25 yrs back on a s/h bought valve amp & it's P.S. chasis, made in early to mid 60's by aircraft company Hawker Sidley, U.K. of 'Harrier Jump-jet' fame, it's function was a long story about white noise (& pink?) exciting cockpit resonances. And now ive seen this biggest single ch' complete x/over i've ever seen (in pic' or life) with this one here for the with that huge (to me) Miflex copper- foiled cap, that cap cannot be cheap!
Speaking of notch filters: Are the phase distortions especially on narrow notches an issue? In one extreme case I got a narrow +/-0.5ms group delay, which sounded not all that great. So I am a bit hesitant with notches and see them as a last resort that should be as wide range and gentle as possible. Many thanks for all the good stuff
Hi I ask you, what do you think of the Proac 1SC, D1 and DB1? in terms of construction and sound. And there is also the Tablette series and the "two" series. Best regard
There's been talk of certain software/programs to adjust frequency at many points until it sounds good to you in your own room via using your computer. I haven't tried that as of yet but if anyone practices that, can you share how much better you can make your speakers sound regardless of speaker price and what program you use?
It is completely wrong to compare the worst with the absolute most expensive and best. One is at one end of the quality ladder and the other at the opposite end. Good quality parts give better sound yes, but not always as big as you think. Depends on what you have and what you are upgrading to!
Danny! As you know I’ve watched probably every one of your videos. I purchased the NX xtreme from you with all the upgraded parts. which I still haven’t completed because the weather where I live is too cold! so I can’t spray paint them with my HVLP spray gun, Epoxy primer, then urethane primer, with urethane base and urethane clear-coat! Until the spring when it warms up! With that said I don’t understand what the thinking is with these high end loudspeaker manufactures! I’ve heard revel since the 90s! they always were underperforming Loudspeakers that were nothing great just average no matter what kind of amps and preamp you used! they never got better based on the better electronics because they were always limited by their crossover network with cheap parts! With all the videos that you produce Danny I’m just amazed that these companies just don’t understand the fact that you’re exposing their crappy parts to 1000’s of audio enthusiasts! it’s like they have no clue or they just don’t give a crap and they continue to sell customers great looking loudspeakers that sound terrible! people need to stop buying them and send a clear message we’re not buying your you’re great looking loudspeakers with crappy cheesy crossover parts! and specs are only a small picture of the way equipment will perform you know that! I know that! maybe 50% of all Audiophile‘s know that? the more people who get exposed to your videos. they’ll realize that the only way to get a good value is to buy your kits or have somebody build your kits! Or buy a pair of used loudspeakers that you’ve upgraded with decent drivers with a path to buy better quality parts network that’s designed by you to provide an upgrade to much better listening experience!
What I would posit (from a logic point of view, not an engineering POV) is that if there is such an audible difference but the measurement does not show a difference, there is a problem with the measurements. If had the skills & tools, I would using the two xovers Danny showed, spend much of my time, trying every type of measurement technique I could until I found measurements which show what I was hearing. I am a firm believer in, if it can be observed it can be measured. Think of the value of being able to identify the differences through measurements rather than relying on your own ears. The results would be completely duplicable. No worrying about whether your wife yelled at you, or you ran out of coffee, or the rum is starting to kick in, is impacting the perceived sound quality.
Does this guy ever "voice" a speaker? Slight differences in frequency response usually make great differences in sound. They may curve flatter, but do they sound more like the real thing?
loving my f208/c208 regardless of crossover parts quality. Works great in MY environment with my taste in sound quality/expectations. s206 surrounds, Anthem avm60/mca525. 3 svs pb-3000 and 1 svs pc13 ultra.
@@dextermorgan1 To our ears, near minimal. Your room acoustics and system tuning like REW will provide MUCH more of an audible difference in a quality speaker (revel performa) than ANY crossover made. Especially when it comes to Home theater vs music. People will people criticize/over analyze the sound of lip smack from the singer, the creak of a wooden chair as the performer leans into the mic etc. Thats a dark place to be. Just enjoy good accurate sound and dont fall into the .1% improvement camp or chasing the "perfection" dragon in a likely imperfect room.
It seems that peek at 5 is in several Revel speakers. I had the M106 for a month and was very much annoyed by that region. Why do reviewers like those on ASR ignore this?
I get where you're going with this, but that giant crossover you showed, what does that monstrosity cost? I'll bet it's easily a grand plus.... Anybody can buy a good amp and throw some active DSP on it for $500 - $600 and change (or less) with almost infinite user control for a better overall sound. What I'm saying is that at a certain point, it's better and more cost effective to just go with a fully active system. Well, it's always better, but in many cases it is less expensive while being better. There has never been $10k worth of parts in a $10k speaker. I swear the price tag on some of this stuff is just gross compensation for lacking in other areas. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Cheers 🍻
It doesn't work that way. We've made those comparisons. Those DSP devices that are $500 to $600 can allow you to produce a flat response. However, the D/A converter, analog output stage, and power supply (sometimes a wall wart) are on about the same level as a $49 CD player from 20 years ago. They sound HORRIBLE. At the level we play the cheapest DAC I would consider as being not too bad is the Denafrips Ares 2 DAC at $1,150. Stepping up into higher end DAC's like those form Holo Audio can easily be 3 times that. The same goes for the computer used to send those files and how the files are handled. All of that has as much or greater effect on how things sound than the differences in parts quality of the crossovers. Right now the top level of performance is still reached by using a good digital source and passive filters, and that is hands down and by far, especially for the money. Trying to do an all digital at the highest level with good DAC's and amps will get you into the $20,000 plus range in a hurry.
@@dannyrichie9743: No contest, you can certainly pi$$ away some serious coin going fully active! My point is that you don't have to. Sound is subjective so we just have to leave it at that. Which is why I keep saying the only way we can really talk about sound is to do so numerically. It's literally the only thing that everybody can agree upon. The numbers are the provable and repeatable facts, everything else is just personal opinion. And I do love that you always show the numbers! Cheers 🍻
@@Finite-Tuning Subjective differences that are the magnitude of what I have heard are not a matter of personal preference. It gets very obvious immediately. If you want to just look at the numbers you'll never get anywhere. In the end all that matters is how it sounds.
@@dannyrichie9743: But you can't prove what you think you are hearing without the measurements to back it up. You didn't know you couldn't hear 20khz until you tested it! Talking about sound is just making more noise in the form of personal opinion, unless you have the numbers to prove it. I've said a thousand times over, to each their own, but if you want to talk to me about sound then you have to do it numerically, which you do. I'm not wrong anymore than you are right, and I don't care about opinions, I only care about the provable facts man. I know I've made this point crystal clear many times now. There is literally nothing more to talk about it. Cheers 🍻
@@Finite-Tuning Actually, I see that mentality as being totally backwards. This hobby is all about the enjoyment of LISTENING to music, and not measuring it. Can you measure a song to decide if it is any good or not? I can also measure differences that you can't hear. So in the end do they matter? Amplifiers used to boost distortion measurements as THD. Some might advertise .02%. Some advertised .01%, and then another .005%. None of that really mattered when it came to listening. There are also a ton of things we can hear that we still have no means to measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means we can't measure them. In the end if it sounds better then it's better. Some things are subjective preference, and some are not. It is all about how it sounds in the end. Nothing else matters.
Love your vids, and thanks for the knowledge! I wish we could get a before and after listen to your work in these vids though. Have a great Thanksgiving!
This may sound off topic, but is there a market for improving public address/sound reinforcement speakers using the same process? Bearing in mind professional audio gear is quite often in a similar or higher price bracket and has different performance goals? I ask because of the rising interest level of people ( like myself) tinkering with pro audio components at home, i.e. cd horns, and pro woofers
This is very odd... I have owned a pair of the M22s for 14 years and if anything they are very slightly rolled off at the top. Not that I have measured them. But I have had record producers and engineers who have commented on how good they are. BUT... I didn't get them exactly "new" but through an industry contact and I am wondering if they had been worked on before I got then. I am now going to have to open one up and see what is inside.
@@dannyrichie9743 Danny, I have to send you my center Channel SNELL from 1991. Uses the infamous VIFA woofers and tweeters. Can’t wait to see what you can do
Ok I agree that the crossovers sound different as I have switched out parts. But how about making two sound samples with cheaper parts and high end? Danny, as a professional and advocate of higher quality parts you SHOULD be doing this. You should also be noting that the parts need to have the exact same measurements. Including DCR. You are the pro here and need to show people the right way.
@@dannyrichie9743 no I mean you should 1) post before after upgrades sound samples. You’ve done it once . You should do it again. 2) as a professional and with a ton of speaker knowledge you should educate the viewers on how simply exchanging cheap parts with good ones in the xo isn’t possible unless you measure the exact DCR of the components. I for one would love it if you shared speaker knowledge for crossovers and how a well made crossover is created. Or different ways of approaching crossover design. Would be super interesting and great since you have a wealth of knowledge Cheers
love this stuff. i own the elac dfr 52 and wondered if you could design a new x over with same values but better parts. only problem is it may need to be external. learned everything from your channel.
I have had a few guys send me the crossovers out of those. They use a lot of big cap values. Swapping out the capacitors for decent poly caps gets pricey, and the cost of real parts throughout can exceed the value and cost of the speaker. It might be a better idea to start over.
I have mapped a Elac xover to make a new one for my friend and used all same values. Most Elacs use giant values of caps in the woofer curciuit. They tend to get very expensive.
As someone who works in acoustics, anytime people start with the 'if you can't measure it, it doesn't matter/doesn't exist" argument I always think of concert hall acoustics. For more than half a century people thought that the only thing that mattered in concert hall acoustics was the reverb time. Why? Well, at the time it was the only thing that could be defined and measured. In the 1980s people like Leo Beranek started asking "Why do different concert halls with the same reverb time sound so different and have such different reputations for quality?" Fast forward 40 years and we've discovered that there are many other acoustical properties that influence the sound quality of a concert hall - most of which are significantly more important than reverb time, and some of which we've sort of defined but still don't have a reliable way to measure. The same is true when it comes to speakers/components/cables. As Danny demonstrates so well, measuring the same and sounding the same are two totally different things.
There also psychological factors that many people overlook. Our perception can vary a bit, though many people take it as truth workout realising that sometimes they "hear" things when it's been affected by extraneous variables like knowing they just swapped X component or just their health and mood at the time
Hey buddy! Love the video! I saw this video a while ago, and I didn't believe it, so I went and tried it. I used one of those ultra sonic dog training things and sure enough, yeah, I could hear it. If I aim it at the base of my neck, just above my shoulders, right on the spine, holding the speaker really close to it, it was very clear. but if I aim it a few inches to either side of that spot, or higher or lower, it was gone. It was very strange and fascinating to hear a frequency for the first time. If assume that's a bone conduction thing, or maybe it's vibrating the nerves enough to hear them? but who knows. But if it's possible to hear those sounds at all, even if it's only in this really weird, highly specific situation, then I'm not completely closed off to the idea that people can hear beyond 20khz, or even possibly hearing with a combination of other nerve endings that aren't in the ear. ua-cam.com/video/tNpPFEwX6Y4/v-deo.html Another really really cool thing was I was watching an electroboom video where he electrocuted himself at different AC frequencies. Now the really really interesting thing is above 20khz of AC current, it tended to burn rather than shock him if my memory is correct. He didn't feel the shock. That's pretty dam interesting.
I have Revel Performa 3 f 206 towers. They sound amazing, BUT I know they're probably full of cheap part just like shown here. I'd bet they could sound even more amazing if they were swapped out, value for value with good X over parts. I wish I could send the X overs to Danny, or someone reputable and have them do that. I'd pay good money to have them upgraded.
Anything and EVERYTHING in the signal path will increase electrical resistance. Absorption of electricity/signal is a different thing though entirely. Both caps and coils store electrical energy, and absorb to a certain degree, but there is also reactance to consider. It is a very involved topic, but suffice it to say that Anything you put directly in the signal path will effect the signal electrically in some way.
@@tweakradje No not super expensive parts, but it does make sense to use good quality parts. You wouldn't want to use parts that smear the signal (slow discharge caps).
I just tried a tone generator on headphones and yea above 17k or so I don't think I actually hear it but I can tell something annoying is going on and when I turned it up it got very irritating.
I watched this up to about 2:50 where Danny said that capacitors inserted (in series) with the woofers "totally smears the whole signal, just ruins it really." For anyone who genuinely has a fundamentally correct understanding of what capacitors actually do, this statement is preposterous and reveals very plainly that Danny does not genuinely understand basic electronics. His knowledge of electronics is a piecemeal hodgepodge that he has picked in a very haphazard way. Presumably what he is trying to say is that the filtering of low frequencies affects the response in the time domain, which is to say, there is a change to the group delay at low frequency, associated with the rolloff of deep bass. This is likely what he is trying to say, but he has no idea how to say it or how to go about obtaining evidence that this effect is of any audible significance. So he simply tells people that this is a bad thing to do with capacitors because it will smear the signal. A crucial fact about this feature of this speaker is that the user controls whether the capacitor is in series or is bypassed. Since a user who doesn't like the capacitor can simply place the switch in the normal position where the capacitor is bypassed, Danny is claiming in essence that the speaker is harmed by the presence of the switch. Certainly it is true that some switches are not very well designed and consequently problematic either from the standpoint of reliability or by affecting the signal that reaches the woofer. If the switch inserts a significant amount of impedance, this would be a problem because, if this amount of impedance is higher than roughly .1 ohm, the behavior of the normal low-pass filter applied to the woofer will be somewhat affected. In all reasonable likelihood the impedance added by the switch is well below the threshold were this would matter, and even if not, it is reasonable to assume that Revel took this into account and determined that it wasn't significant. What is not reasonable in the least is for Danny to tell everyone that this is a problem, without bothering to take any measurements or to perform any quantitative analysis to prove that the supposed problem is real. This is is standard M.O. He asserts that there is some problem, without providing any proof of it, then proceeds from there to sell the supposed solution, without providing poof that the solution actually accomplishes anything, and usually at much greater cost than what the gadgetry he sells really ought to cost. He perpetually uses this method to sell people costly crossover components, even though he has never provided any proof that the more expensive stuff sounds any better, or that anyone can hear a difference that is genuinely attributable to the cost or quality of the component as opposed to a difference that is attributable to small differences in the component values. In order for a double blind listening test to support the conclusion that the difference in sound is due to the difference in cost and quality of the components, it is necessary for the component values (the capacitance, the inductance, and the resistance) to be exactly the same for the high-cost crossover components as for the low-cost crossover components. To the best of my knowledge he never makes certain of this, so while you think that the reason the sound is better (or at least different) is because of his more costly crossover components, there is no way to know with certainty that any difference you hear is simply due to small differences in the component values. And in the case of a wholesale change to a crossover, the same new circuitry is not implemented using both inexpensive stuff and expensive stuff, so there is no possible way to know whether the apparent improvement brought about by the modified circuit with expensive stuff wouldn't also be achieved with that same modified circuit that uses inexpensive components rather than the costly components that he wants to sell you because his margins are higher with costly components than with inexpensive components. The peak in the tweeter response at 5 kHz is a whopping +1.5 dB. It looks worse because of the vertical scale he is using. He provided reason for not bothering to do anything about the high peak up close to 20 kHz. The most genuine reason for not worrying about that is that most people wouldn't be able to hear it. If I wanted to do something about that peak, I would add a simple Zoebel network between the crossover output and the driver terminals, conceptually shunting the driver. The reason is that this sort of response rise at very high frequency is generally at least partly due to the rising impedance of the driver when there is a resistor in series with the driver to pad the driver, which is typical with tweeters. The tweeter's share of the voltage increases and the resistor's share decreases, in accordance with the shift in their relative impedances. To counteract this you place a circuit in parallel with the driver, the impedance of which will fall with increase in frequency, thereby offsetting the rise in the driver impedance. With this particular tweeter the rise in the response is strong enough to suggest that it is partly due to a resonance on the surface of the metal dome, which is something that is rarely avoided with metal dome tweeters. You can't do anything about that, unless you replace the tweeter, however if you deem this to be a problem, the use of a Zoebel is almost certainly the most effective way to mitigate this peak. And as always, he wants you to pay for his tube connectors, even though he doesn't have any genuine reason to think that they have any effect on the sound quality, or to tell you that they do, which he has done in the past. The only thing he has done here that is potentially of any genuine benefit is the suppression of that little bitty peak at 5 kHz, which you would most likely not ever hear.
Surely there must be a measurement system that actually highlights these time domain and imaging differences you get with the quality of parts. I see so much commentary on-line about the "mysticism" involved in hi-end audiophile's focus on quality parts - yet if it is reproduced surely there must be some way of measuring it ? We have so much computing power available today - if it goes in your ears it should be possible to render that in some comparable form which shows all the differences
In the end it doesn't matter if you can measure it or not. What we are trying to achieve centers around what we can hear. Here is another example. I am a racing guy. I do and have done a lot of drag racing and have had engines on a dyno for tuning and to see how much power they make. Top Fuel Dragsters and Funny Cars make approximately 11,000 horsepower. It is a value that is approximated because there are no dynos that exist that can measure the power. Just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean they make no power.
@@harryburnett7086 If you think those sound awesome wait until you hear any DIY speaker kit that we offer. Every kit we offer is at a much higher level in just about every way.
@@dannyrichie9743 I have owned them since 2008 and I cannot recognise my speakers in your description. I am very puzzled. In the title you have them as B22 but they are actually M22, aren't they? I am going to have to look now to see if somebody got at them before I bought them. It wasn't a straightforward shop buy but was fro someone I lost contact with who was in the industry so they might have been hot rodded I guess.
You spent several minutes talking about how overly high high frequency can be negative even if you can't hear it, then you leave it alone?? Strange choice. As far as measurement changes, I would think a crossover of equal value but better parts would still give you a different overall frequency response curve. The physical location of the crossover would be the same but shouldn't the variations that pass thru the parts be affected slightly? Or would the graph look exactly the same?
There is no easy way to fix a narrow band peak like that (at 20kHz). It is a driver problem, not a crossover problem. No, changing crossover parts value for value but moving up in quality does not alter the frequency response. The signal is different, but a frequency response just measures how loud it is. How loud is not changed.
You are only looking at amplitude of the signal not on waveform. If you recording a sinewave of your system, you will see the waveform is slightly difference from one other. Moving up the frequency you will hear more like 5khz above or 2-3 second
Guys, don’t listen to all the voodoo. Some of best speakers in the world designed by the most respected engineers in the industry use switches in the signal path.
Some of those Revel metal dome tweeters can drive you out of the room in less than 15 seconds especially if the speaker is powered by sand amps. After seeing this would have to wonder how many of the other revel models have tweeters have a similar issue.
If all you care about is sound quality, then a speaker with an active DSP crossover is far superior. Before you argue out of ignorance, do some research about it...
It doesn't work that way. I'm not ignorant. We've made those comparisons. Those DSP devices that are $500 to $600 can allow you to produce a flat response. However, the D/A converter, analog output stage, and power supply (sometimes a wall wart) are on about the same level as a $49 CD player from 20 years ago. They sound HORRIBLE. At the level we play the cheapest DAC I would consider as being not too bad is the Denafrips Ares 2 DAC at $1,150. Stepping up into higher end DAC's like those form Holo Audio can easily be 3 times that. The same goes for the computer used to send those files and how the files are handled. All of that has as much or greater effect on how things sound than the differences in parts quality of the crossovers. Right now the top level of performance is still reached by using a good digital source and passive filters, and that is hands down and by far, especially for the money. Trying to do an all digital at the highest level with good DAC's and amps will get you into the $20,000 plus range in a hurry.
Anaxa, what is the basis for our claim of "far superior"? A DSP can achieve a flat frequency response, or not, depending on user preference. Does DSP processing actually improve sound quality. All in the ear of the listener. We don't listen to graphs or spec sheets. Having worked with DSP systems far more expensive, complex and accurate than any used in audio I fully understand the limitations and tradeoffs of DSP. I take no issue with individual choice to use DSP over a passive crossover. However, your broad brush statement is simply a reflection of personal preference based on either listening or selective "research".
@@jfritzy4358 I'm talking about an active DSP crossover like those seen in powered studio monitors. The active crossover allows for much finer control over the drivers than a passive crossover ever could - especially if you go beyond two-way. They also eliminate the problem of impedance matching. Given how expensive and cumbersome the massive coke can sized capacitor crossovers recommended on this channel are, going with with an active speaker is actually cheaper at that point and decent ones measure FAR better than 99% of passives. Buying a passive speaker nowadays is like choosing to heat a home with firewood when you can afford an HVAC system.
@@dannyrichie9743 What are you even talking about? You can buy a $400 pair of active DSP studio monitors like Kali LP6 v2 that measure flatter than 99% of passives at any price and you can buy your own $100 audibly transparent dac if needed. It seems like you have a God of the gaps type of argument to refute anything objective by claiming "your suggestion sounds bad, my product sounds good".
Old timers like me will remember the 15.75 KHz horizontal sync whine from their TV's.
It must have been annoying as a kid or teenager, when our ears easily reached that frequency. Could you hear the 18'Khz (? or close to) F.M. stereo radio 'carrier wave' when you listened to F.M. radio at under say, 30/35'ish yrs old? I heard F.M. stereo as a young kid & teen, & I just didn't notice it or hear it due to equipment frequency response or maybe I was conditioned to 'not hear it' like the brain can ignore & almost blot-out a constantly ticking clock with much familiarity to it, as F.M. stereo was often played by my folks when I was a kid.
Our dad tested his & our family's hi-end response when he got into hi-fi, me & my sister (12 & 16 yrs old respectively) got to around 19,500 on the test-L.P.s frequency tracks (tho it becomes more like a pressure on the eardrum up there) our mother almost the same, while my dad was annoyed he heard nothing after about 14,500 Hz. Children & women* (*to an older age than men can hear higher frequencies much better
I remember that
I too can remember being able to hear that but it was long ago
at my 33 i still hear those frequencies some how i prefer speakers with a top end roll off
Oh man, am i an old timer now?
It would be interesting to do a blind listening test of before and after upgrades to see if one can tell the difference. Kinda like cables
Not only that HF notes you may not hear, played solely, may cause pain and discomfort, they surely become audible when modulated on a note that you can surely hear. Try play any note in any area where the ears are very sensitve and add the 19kHz.....or even 22kHz that most people say we can't hear.....and listen to the note......its now played with an clear audible "change" to it. This convinced me that the overtones above "hearing limit" in music are just as important as the bandwith we normally accept as audible.
That is correct.
I confirmed the the importance of crossover upgrades and the synergy of the components you choose. I replaced all the capacitors and resisters of my Linton and I ended up buying a new pair, because I don’t like the new sound. it’s so obvious. after I got my new pair of Linton and I actually AB test them, the upgraded one is significantly different sounding than the original ones (so my impression after upgrade was correct), I gain a lot more details after the upgrade, but I also change the sound signature of the Linton. this time, I will slowly change the caps and resisters bits by bits instead of everything at one time so I can actually adjust the sound and know which one is not my taste
You measured a 21 year old speaker, and the on-axis response was still within +/- 1.5 dB up to around 18 kHz. It would probably be a little worse without the 1/3 smoothing, but still, quite impressive. The cheesy parts were still doing their job after 21 years. And btw, you made the horizontal directivity slightly worse in the important 1-3 kHz range. Will it be audible? Perhaps, but the deviations are quite small. More measurements would be needed to get the full picture.
I had the M22’s new, and they sounded absolutely amazing with various quality power amps. I didn’t see any glaring problems, very smooth, and an extended airy high end. Very stable rock solid image, dynamic, and powerful. Never fatiguing no matter what I threw at them. A great speaker for $5-600 a pair used. Dare to do better. As is the M20.
Absolutely! More upgrade videos please :D
Years ago I replaced the parts in my crossover for my old college speakers. I bought a set of Cerwin-Vega D7's in college in the 80's. I replaced the binding posts, put high end parts and high quality wire. I also put some type of damping material in it. I didn't bypass the fuse or pots for the mids and tweeters. I'm sure it would sound better redesigning the crossovers if I knew how. I'm happy with what I have when I play them with high end electronics. It's much better than what it was.
I have a pair of these In Service. The Woofer had been reconed using hard Carbon fibre cone/dome and decent foam. These cabinets really require a significant level of bracing and internal corner backup. Dampening helps, but removal of the 'fuse' CB protection and dodgy pots would be a positive.
The thing is... they will always be loud and brash.... more of a semi-pro PA than HiFi... hardly worthy of being driven by a decent HiFi.
When I was 20 years old I can hear up to 22 five. I could point out every ultrasonic node department store without even looking it would drive me crazy. Now 48 years later, I can barely hear up to 13 five and that’s from an audiologist so I know I’m correct. Guns, rock ‘n’ roll, loud cars, driving with the windows down all screwed my hearing up.
Well Damn , we need to start a club for people like us .
I’m done at 12K. My right ear is basically midrange-only. My left ear is super sensitive, as it compensates for losses in my right ear. Too many Marshall stacks in my 20s and 30s. Those will destroy your hearing faster than just about anything.
a lot of ear wax build up is a factor of course
I can sympathize. I’m nearing 70, my “ceiling” is slightly under 12K now 😮☹️
I feel that, I'm 31 now and can hear max 17khz, early 20s about 22 on good headphones
I've watched ALL your upgrades videos, Danny, and, as an engineer myself, I am full of questions like "What is it that Danny is doing that the design engineers aren't?" or "What part of the design process did they skip or flat out miss?" or "How is it that Danny can, in a relatively short amount of time, knock the socks off what the design engineers did in probably 10x the time?" Your thoughts, Danny? My first guess would likely be centered on (your) experience-based engineering versus (their) schooling-based engineering. What can we DIYers do better to improve our designs like you consistently show? It's obviously more than just correcting frequency response. Would love to hear you discuss your thought process in more detail as you go about correcting these crossover components. Well done!
Manufacturers are building to a price point. DYI you are not restrained by a price point, if you have the money.
my guess is that many of them are given a price point thats impossible and they just want to keep the job. big names sell based on name recognition so the sales happen regardless in most cases. alex jones is a case in point of how you can do both price and design on a budget.
Some of it is based on budget restraints, but a lot of it is simply lack of experience. Finishing college classes and being given a certificate (been there) doesn't trump real world experience in a field, especially decades of study in a field. I see a lot of stuff that are simple fixes if you simply know what to do.
One of these days I will film the whole process.
@@dannyrichie9743 Thank you! Looking forward to it.
I'm a mechanical engineer and I have totally seen the same thing in my field. I have come to realize that when a person graduates, they are the most dangerous because they feel smart, but without a lot of practical experience to back up their judgement. It comes with time if you keep at it, but you end up realizing that many of the "good ideas" for how to design in school just aren't going to happen due to budget or schedule constraints and you have to learn the "street smarts" of your industry to get the job done quickly and effectively.
From my experience, another piece of the puzzle could also be: designing to specifications. That has pros and cons. If the spec-manship of the product was done well, then the product is usually high-quality in the end, but this requires a very knowledgeable individual and probably a higher budget. If requirements have been left out (either by ignorance or business decisions), then you can expect an inferior product to some level.
@@dannyrichie9743 I would love to see a video on how you design. I’ve learned to treat cones and acoustic/ mechanical resonances first before a crossover is designed. It makes crossover design easier.
As a diy speaker designer, I never tire of these videos. How much was that enormous miflex cap? Like a grand?
$300 to $400 a piece.
@@dannyrichie9743 Ah ok. I recently bought some small ones from Sonicraft on y’all’s recommendation. I made a 34hz in line filter just now. The improvements in the vocal region are undeniable. Thanks Danny!
Thanks for your videos, if i Lived near (in the USA) you I would be using you guys all the time
Overtones are critical in defining the music. One of the reasons I always liked square waves for testing. Any rounding or slopes are contrary to clarity.
Yes not people look at the square wave response with a mic in front of a speaker they should show the results
For testing speakers ? That's interesting, as one capable of reproducing a squarewave properly is yet to be invented.
@@paulb4661 Impelling the motion of a mass always results in rounding. Physics demands a delay in response. In particular upper frequencies, it becomes ever more obvious since the movement through time is requiring the inertia of that mass to be negated and reversed by power inputs immediately. That is never spot on. Very Newtonian.
This was the inception of going to plasma speakers. Extremely low mass problems but SOOOO many others.
@@dennisbohner6876 Precisely, then add issues related to combining multiple sources with LCR filtering in a typical speaker and you end up with a real mess. Informative in bench testing of amplifiers, but providing heartbreaking results with speakers at best.
@@paulb4661 Dealing with lightspeed adjustments to retain wave forms are much easier in the electronic domain. Now if we could directly pump that into our brain, bypassing our ears' limitations and.... golly! it's Nirvana for real.
Even if I don't hear it directly, high frequencies add "airyness" to what I hear. So those speakers would sound "airy" to me. Problem being, my children will run from the room with their hands over their ears. And you can bet that peak can damage the hearing of children too young to express their discomfort.
What Richie said falls exactly in line with what I've been saying for decades. I've heard good measurements sound bad, but I've never heard bad measurements sound good. When buying audio, start with good measurements and then give it a listen.
Which I suppose is a good segue into a comment about equalizers. Most equalizers will add multiple capacitors in the signal path, and that causes smearing similar to that of caps in a crossover. Unfortunately, I currently know of no equalizer that does not smear the signal. not that there's none out there. I'm sure there is. I just haven't heard it. Equalizers are definitely one of those units that can have great specs, but still sound bad.
I'm quite sensitive to EQ transparency too, I likely own more EQs than any other type of gear.
I have a dozen quality pieces and about two dozen EQs in total.
Every system can benefit from EQ'ing the LF below the transition. The challenge is the cure can't be worse than the symptom!
An EQ must possess adequate transparency.
I've had success with my Meyer and Apogee parametric EQs. I've got multiple Ashley EQs, Velodyne DSP EQ, SVS DSP, Audio Control, dbx, Rane, inexpensive Behringer and several others.
There's expensive mastering EQs that don't trash the signal, Manley, SPL, GML, Weiss.
Thanks Danny for another intelligent video.
I find it somewhat painful to see a known brand using poor parts
With the Capacitor in the bass signal path: it should beta so called „GHP“ or „Closed Box High Pass filtered“ Design? In this config the cabinet should be closed so that the high pass filter could work well to increase bass reproduction in low end.
RIP Mr Dodd. I didn’t know that he was no longer with us. I remember hearing one of his battery powered amps. I think it was using el84’s but not completely sure and around 15 wpc. Might have been using a pair of your speakers. What I do remember is that it was really good
I laughed and my jaw dropped when I saw the Dynaudio confidence 60 crossover . A disgrace for the money being asked
Probably less than $10 in parts. But, if you’re into getting ripped off, then Dynaudio is where you need to be.
Junk for the asking price.
its a pity when designers get blamed for the greed
The 5khz peak is the one which is fatiguing. The 19khz you can’t hear to save your life at your age Let alone 18 or even 17khz without it being seriously attenuated.
That tweeter they use has a serous design resonance probably the cone material I have noticed in other reviews similar results on mainly tweeters at the high end
Sorry if this has been asked before, but do upgraded crossovers (of the same values) perhaps show up in the 'waterfall' plots?
This makes total sense to me now .
Just got a Nad M33 and Dali epicon 2 speakers . It sounds pretty good but my head feels like it’s under pressure and I can’t handle it . But cant hear any harsh ness . Thanks for the explanation.
Recently purchased a Dali Opticon 1 MK2 and within its seems and quality limits it seems pretty good overall. For a small speaker, the bass is there, its tight and fast but definitely doesn't take the stage. very mid centric and the highs have a bit more density and less airiness that I am used to. It can come across as a bot bright with some glare at times and wonder if they could have done better with the crossover.
In comparison, I tried the Menuet SE and while it could float sounds a bit better, with less glare and brightness, they got rid of so much detail that even with better resolution, it didn't sound as good overall.
Big difference in price but I'd take the Opticon over the Menuet just for the detail and versatility, it works in both near and midfield, is easier to drive and sounds decent for the price I paid.
I would consider upgrading the crossover for a few hundred if it really improves the SQ though it isn't bad as it is. I wouldn't call it relaxing, rather more engaging. Still getting used to it and during some passages there can be that pressure one may feel., but it does alot more right than wrong.
Interesting, I’ve experienced that head pressure issue when using DSP EQ to force a flat room room response in a bad room. I concluded it was a result of trying to fix the room nulls with boost. The speakers end up moving a lot of air trying to beat the null but the room still cancells most of the sound out and I think you feel that room pressure although you can’t hear it at the listening position. Not sure if this helps you in any way but food for thought.
Arnie nudell entered chat ": did you say controls on the back of speakers ?! Is not good ?!
Lol
Suggestion for the next video like this; it would be great to get an explanation as to what is happening to the sound with cheap crossover parts vs. higher quality parts of the same value. As in what about them measures differently and what is their contribution and impact on the speaker as whole.
You mean like this: ua-cam.com/video/8IQ4t1Y1mxo/v-deo.html
@@dannyrichie9743 Apparently lol. I guess missed that, thanks!
I guess the one thing that could be expanded on is some sort of visual representation of what is happening. I had a basic electronics understanding before DIY audio so I get discharge rates and saturation values with electrolytic caps and iron inductors. Higher quality poly caps and foil inductors are just better in terms of discharge and saturation which I can get behind. Still not sure I quite understand what a better quality resistor is doing though (did I miss it in the video?).
UA-cam being a visual medium visuals of the components impact on the signal would be interesting to see. I know thats not something you typically do with your objective measurements but it might go a long to getting the concept across to people with no prior awareness of capacitor and inductor characteristics.
Have you looked at, or can you look at, the Revel Concerta2 F36 towers?
Not in house.
I still see lots of old Sansui speakers around. I would love to see what you can do with a set of those.
Another record- breaking sight for my eyes.
Along with the biggest inductor i'd ever seen put before a domestic commercial speaker's bass driver's input, for good or bad(?) ...looks exactly like a 350VA mains transformer, in shape & size. (minus secondaries) on my 1972'ish made B&W DM70 e/stat hybrids, now waiting for a re-panel (it's panel- energizer mains transformer & hi-pass is elsewhere on board) And the record biggest (in pic's or life) 2 output transformers, choke & mains tyranny (itself 11" inch high & 7" & 6" girth came to me on 25 yrs back on a s/h bought valve amp & it's P.S. chasis, made in early to mid 60's by aircraft company Hawker Sidley, U.K. of 'Harrier Jump-jet' fame, it's function was a long story about white noise (& pink?) exciting cockpit resonances.
And now ive seen this biggest single ch' complete x/over i've ever seen (in pic' or life) with this one here for the with that huge (to me) Miflex copper- foiled cap, that cap cannot be cheap!
Speaking of notch filters: Are the phase distortions especially on narrow notches an issue? In one extreme case I got a narrow +/-0.5ms group delay, which sounded not all that great. So I am a bit hesitant with notches and see them as a last resort that should be as wide range and gentle as possible. Many thanks for all the good stuff
Hi
I ask you, what do you think of the Proac 1SC, D1 and DB1? in terms of construction and sound. And there is also the Tablette series and the "two" series.
Best regard
There's been talk of certain software/programs to adjust frequency at many points until it sounds good to you in your own room via using your computer. I haven't tried that as of yet but if anyone practices that, can you share how much better you can make your speakers sound regardless of speaker price and what program you use?
It is completely wrong to compare the worst with the absolute most expensive and best. One is at one end of the quality ladder and the other at the opposite end.
Good quality parts give better sound yes, but not always as big as you think.
Depends on what you have and what you are upgrading to!
Danny! As you know I’ve watched probably every one of your videos.
I purchased the NX xtreme from you with all the upgraded parts. which I still haven’t completed because the weather where I live is too cold! so I can’t spray paint them with my HVLP spray gun, Epoxy primer, then urethane primer, with urethane base and urethane clear-coat! Until the spring when it warms up!
With that said I don’t understand what the thinking is with these high end loudspeaker manufactures! I’ve heard revel since the 90s! they always were underperforming Loudspeakers that were nothing great just average no matter what kind of amps and preamp you used! they never got better based on the better electronics because they were always limited by their crossover network with cheap parts! With all the videos that you produce Danny I’m just amazed that these companies just don’t understand the fact that you’re exposing their crappy parts to 1000’s of audio enthusiasts!
it’s like they have no clue or they just don’t give a crap and they continue to sell customers great looking loudspeakers that sound terrible! people need to stop buying them and send a clear message we’re not buying your you’re great looking loudspeakers with crappy cheesy crossover parts! and specs are only a small picture of the way equipment will perform you know that! I know that! maybe 50% of all Audiophile‘s know that?
the more people who get exposed to your videos. they’ll realize that the only way to get a good value is to buy your kits or have somebody build your kits! Or buy a pair of used loudspeakers that you’ve upgraded with decent drivers with a path to buy better quality parts network that’s designed by you to provide an upgrade to much better listening experience!
What I would posit (from a logic point of view, not an engineering POV) is that if there is such an audible difference but the measurement does not show a difference, there is a problem with the measurements. If had the skills & tools, I would using the two xovers Danny showed, spend much of my time, trying every type of measurement technique I could until I found measurements which show what I was hearing.
I am a firm believer in, if it can be observed it can be measured. Think of the value of being able to identify the differences through measurements rather than relying on your own ears. The results would be completely duplicable. No worrying about whether your wife yelled at you, or you ran out of coffee, or the rum is starting to kick in, is impacting the perceived sound quality.
Like these speakers or not, the thumbnail is 😂👌
Does this guy ever "voice" a speaker? Slight differences in frequency response usually make great differences in sound. They may curve flatter, but do they sound more like the real thing?
Hello, great info…thank you!
Now, what do you think about the revel performa3 f208 and c208?
loving my f208/c208 regardless of crossover parts quality. Works great in MY environment with my taste in sound quality/expectations. s206 surrounds, Anthem avm60/mca525. 3 svs pb-3000 and 1 svs pc13 ultra.
Send one in and we can let you know.
Are there tests to objectively evaluate crossover networks?
@@gregstrzalka2581 I love my F 206 also. I have a C 208 on the way. I do wonder just how much better they would sound with good X over parts though.
@@dextermorgan1 To our ears, near minimal. Your room acoustics and system tuning like REW will provide MUCH more of an audible difference in a quality speaker (revel performa) than ANY crossover made. Especially when it comes to Home theater vs music. People will people criticize/over analyze the sound of lip smack from the singer, the creak of a wooden chair as the performer leans into the mic etc. Thats a dark place to be. Just enjoy good accurate sound and dont fall into the .1% improvement camp or chasing the "perfection" dragon in a likely imperfect room.
It seems that peek at 5 is in several Revel speakers. I had the M106 for a month and was very much annoyed by that region. Why do reviewers like those on
ASR ignore this?
I get where you're going with this, but that giant crossover you showed, what does that monstrosity cost? I'll bet it's easily a grand plus.... Anybody can buy a good amp and throw some active DSP on it for $500 - $600 and change (or less) with almost infinite user control for a better overall sound. What I'm saying is that at a certain point, it's better and more cost effective to just go with a fully active system. Well, it's always better, but in many cases it is less expensive while being better. There has never been $10k worth of parts in a $10k speaker. I swear the price tag on some of this stuff is just gross compensation for lacking in other areas. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Cheers 🍻
It doesn't work that way. We've made those comparisons. Those DSP devices that are $500 to $600 can allow you to produce a flat response. However, the D/A converter, analog output stage, and power supply (sometimes a wall wart) are on about the same level as a $49 CD player from 20 years ago. They sound HORRIBLE. At the level we play the cheapest DAC I would consider as being not too bad is the Denafrips Ares 2 DAC at $1,150. Stepping up into higher end DAC's like those form Holo Audio can easily be 3 times that. The same goes for the computer used to send those files and how the files are handled. All of that has as much or greater effect on how things sound than the differences in parts quality of the crossovers. Right now the top level of performance is still reached by using a good digital source and passive filters, and that is hands down and by far, especially for the money. Trying to do an all digital at the highest level with good DAC's and amps will get you into the $20,000 plus range in a hurry.
@@dannyrichie9743:
No contest, you can certainly pi$$ away some serious coin going fully active! My point is that you don't have to. Sound is subjective so we just have to leave it at that. Which is why I keep saying the only way we can really talk about sound is to do so numerically. It's literally the only thing that everybody can agree upon. The numbers are the provable and repeatable facts, everything else is just personal opinion. And I do love that you always show the numbers! Cheers 🍻
@@Finite-Tuning Subjective differences that are the magnitude of what I have heard are not a matter of personal preference. It gets very obvious immediately. If you want to just look at the numbers you'll never get anywhere. In the end all that matters is how it sounds.
@@dannyrichie9743:
But you can't prove what you think you are hearing without the measurements to back it up. You didn't know you couldn't hear 20khz until you tested it! Talking about sound is just making more noise in the form of personal opinion, unless you have the numbers to prove it. I've said a thousand times over, to each their own, but if you want to talk to me about sound then you have to do it numerically, which you do. I'm not wrong anymore than you are right, and I don't care about opinions, I only care about the provable facts man. I know I've made this point crystal clear many times now. There is literally nothing more to talk about it.
Cheers 🍻
@@Finite-Tuning Actually, I see that mentality as being totally backwards. This hobby is all about the enjoyment of LISTENING to music, and not measuring it. Can you measure a song to decide if it is any good or not? I can also measure differences that you can't hear. So in the end do they matter? Amplifiers used to boost distortion measurements as THD. Some might advertise .02%. Some advertised .01%, and then another .005%. None of that really mattered when it came to listening. There are also a ton of things we can hear that we still have no means to measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means we can't measure them. In the end if it sounds better then it's better. Some things are subjective preference, and some are not. It is all about how it sounds in the end. Nothing else matters.
Love your vids, and thanks for the knowledge! I wish we could get a before and after listen to your work in these vids though. Have a great Thanksgiving!
This may sound off topic, but is there a market for improving public address/sound reinforcement speakers using the same process? Bearing in mind professional audio gear is quite often in a similar or higher price bracket and has different performance goals? I ask because of the rising interest level of people ( like myself) tinkering with pro audio components at home, i.e. cd horns, and pro woofers
This is very odd... I have owned a pair of the M22s for 14 years and if anything they are very slightly rolled off at the top. Not that I have measured them.
But I have had record producers and engineers who have commented on how good they are.
BUT... I didn't get them exactly "new" but through an industry contact and I am wondering if they had been worked on before I got then.
I am now going to have to open one up and see what is inside.
Good god!-) How much does that giant crossover cost? Does it require a lot of power from an amp to run something like that?
Amplifier power needed for quality parts are no different than amplifier power needed for cheesy parts.
Here's the old friends here and gone
I visited the Snell factory after Peter Snell died and Kevin Voeks took over - and ruined it all.
Around what year did Kevin take over? I have a REVEL C50 from I think 02-03’?
We have a Snell speaker in house for upgrades right now.
@@dannyrichie9743 Danny, I have to send you my center Channel SNELL from 1991. Uses the infamous VIFA woofers and tweeters. Can’t wait to see what you can do
@@Hondaguru1122 Around 1983.
Ok I agree that the crossovers sound different as I have switched out parts.
But how about making two sound samples with cheaper parts and high end?
Danny, as a professional and advocate of higher quality parts you SHOULD be doing this.
You should also be noting that the parts need to have the exact same measurements. Including DCR.
You are the pro here and need to show people the right way.
We do this all the time. I just showed two crossovers in the video that we have used for this.
@@dannyrichie9743 no I mean you should
1) post before after upgrades sound samples. You’ve done it once . You should do it again.
2) as a professional and with a ton of speaker knowledge you should educate the viewers on how simply exchanging cheap parts with good ones in the xo isn’t possible unless you measure the exact DCR of the components.
I for one would love it if you shared speaker knowledge for crossovers and how a well made crossover is created. Or different ways of approaching crossover design. Would be super interesting and great since you have a wealth of knowledge
Cheers
love this stuff. i own the elac dfr 52 and wondered if you could design a new x over with same values but better parts. only problem is it may need to be external. learned everything from your channel.
I have had a few guys send me the crossovers out of those. They use a lot of big cap values. Swapping out the capacitors for decent poly caps gets pricey, and the cost of real parts throughout can exceed the value and cost of the speaker. It might be a better idea to start over.
I have mapped a Elac xover to make a new one for my friend and used all same values. Most Elacs use giant values of caps in the woofer curciuit. They tend to get very expensive.
@@dannyrichie9743 well that settles that. i enjoy them as is so i guess i will wait until i buy one of your models
As someone who works in acoustics, anytime people start with the 'if you can't measure it, it doesn't matter/doesn't exist" argument I always think of concert hall acoustics. For more than half a century people thought that the only thing that mattered in concert hall acoustics was the reverb time. Why? Well, at the time it was the only thing that could be defined and measured. In the 1980s people like Leo Beranek started asking "Why do different concert halls with the same reverb time sound so different and have such different reputations for quality?" Fast forward 40 years and we've discovered that there are many other acoustical properties that influence the sound quality of a concert hall - most of which are significantly more important than reverb time, and some of which we've sort of defined but still don't have a reliable way to measure. The same is true when it comes to speakers/components/cables. As Danny demonstrates so well, measuring the same and sounding the same are two totally different things.
There also psychological factors that many people overlook. Our perception can vary a bit, though many people take it as truth workout realising that sometimes they "hear" things when it's been affected by extraneous variables like knowing they just swapped X component or just their health and mood at the time
Hey buddy! Love the video! I saw this video a while ago, and I didn't believe it, so I went and tried it. I used one of those ultra sonic dog training things and sure enough, yeah, I could hear it. If I aim it at the base of my neck, just above my shoulders, right on the spine, holding the speaker really close to it, it was very clear. but if I aim it a few inches to either side of that spot, or higher or lower, it was gone. It was very strange and fascinating to hear a frequency for the first time. If assume that's a bone conduction thing, or maybe it's vibrating the nerves enough to hear them? but who knows.
But if it's possible to hear those sounds at all, even if it's only in this really weird, highly specific situation, then I'm not completely closed off to the idea that people can hear beyond 20khz, or even possibly hearing with a combination of other nerve endings that aren't in the ear.
ua-cam.com/video/tNpPFEwX6Y4/v-deo.html
Another really really cool thing was I was watching an electroboom video where he electrocuted himself at different AC frequencies. Now the really really interesting thing is above 20khz of AC current, it tended to burn rather than shock him if my memory is correct. He didn't feel the shock. That's pretty dam interesting.
Just where is that dam? Damn thing's hard to find.
I have Revel Performa 3 f 206 towers. They sound amazing, BUT I know they're probably full of cheap part just like shown here. I'd bet they could sound even more amazing if they were swapped out, value for value with good X over parts. I wish I could send the X overs to Danny, or someone reputable and have them do that. I'd pay good money to have them upgraded.
If you just want the same values why not order those components and a 4 dollar soldering iron and just swap them out? Fun afternoon project.
Great video 👍
Is a notch filter "in the signal path"? It absorbes energy at a certain frequency. Does anyone know?
Anything and EVERYTHING in the signal path will increase electrical resistance. Absorption of electricity/signal is a different thing though entirely. Both caps and coils store electrical energy, and absorb to a certain degree, but there is also reactance to consider. It is a very involved topic, but suffice it to say that Anything you put directly in the signal path will effect the signal electrically in some way.
Everything to some degree is in the signal path.
@@dannyrichie9743 Thanks. Let me put it this way: Do you need expensive components in a notch filter?
@@tweakradje No not super expensive parts, but it does make sense to use good quality parts. You wouldn't want to use parts that smear the signal (slow discharge caps).
I just tried a tone generator on headphones and yea above 17k or so I don't think I actually hear it but I can tell something annoying is going on and when I turned it up it got very irritating.
Your small tribute to your buddy at the onset of this video was very touching. It literally put tears in my eyes. Thank you for sharing that with us.
I watched this up to about 2:50 where Danny said that capacitors inserted (in series) with the woofers "totally smears the whole signal, just ruins it really." For anyone who genuinely has a fundamentally correct understanding of what capacitors actually do, this statement is preposterous and reveals very plainly that Danny does not genuinely understand basic electronics. His knowledge of electronics is a piecemeal hodgepodge that he has picked in a very haphazard way. Presumably what he is trying to say is that the filtering of low frequencies affects the response in the time domain, which is to say, there is a change to the group delay at low frequency, associated with the rolloff of deep bass. This is likely what he is trying to say, but he has no idea how to say it or how to go about obtaining evidence that this effect is of any audible significance. So he simply tells people that this is a bad thing to do with capacitors because it will smear the signal. A crucial fact about this feature of this speaker is that the user controls whether the capacitor is in series or is bypassed. Since a user who doesn't like the capacitor can simply place the switch in the normal position where the capacitor is bypassed, Danny is claiming in essence that the speaker is harmed by the presence of the switch. Certainly it is true that some switches are not very well designed and consequently problematic either from the standpoint of reliability or by affecting the signal that reaches the woofer. If the switch inserts a significant amount of impedance, this would be a problem because, if this amount of impedance is higher than roughly .1 ohm, the behavior of the normal low-pass filter applied to the woofer will be somewhat affected. In all reasonable likelihood the impedance added by the switch is well below the threshold were this would matter, and even if not, it is reasonable to assume that Revel took this into account and determined that it wasn't significant. What is not reasonable in the least is for Danny to tell everyone that this is a problem, without bothering to take any measurements or to perform any quantitative analysis to prove that the supposed problem is real. This is is standard M.O. He asserts that there is some problem, without providing any proof of it, then proceeds from there to sell the supposed solution, without providing poof that the solution actually accomplishes anything, and usually at much greater cost than what the gadgetry he sells really ought to cost.
He perpetually uses this method to sell people costly crossover components, even though he has never provided any proof that the more expensive stuff sounds any better, or that anyone can hear a difference that is genuinely attributable to the cost or quality of the component as opposed to a difference that is attributable to small differences in the component values. In order for a double blind listening test to support the conclusion that the difference in sound is due to the difference in cost and quality of the components, it is necessary for the component values (the capacitance, the inductance, and the resistance) to be exactly the same for the high-cost crossover components as for the low-cost crossover components. To the best of my knowledge he never makes certain of this, so while you think that the reason the sound is better (or at least different) is because of his more costly crossover components, there is no way to know with certainty that any difference you hear is simply due to small differences in the component values. And in the case of a wholesale change to a crossover, the same new circuitry is not implemented using both inexpensive stuff and expensive stuff, so there is no possible way to know whether the apparent improvement brought about by the modified circuit with expensive stuff wouldn't also be achieved with that same modified circuit that uses inexpensive components rather than the costly components that he wants to sell you because his margins are higher with costly components than with inexpensive components.
The peak in the tweeter response at 5 kHz is a whopping +1.5 dB. It looks worse because of the vertical scale he is using.
He provided reason for not bothering to do anything about the high peak up close to 20 kHz. The most genuine reason for not worrying about that is that most people wouldn't be able to hear it. If I wanted to do something about that peak, I would add a simple Zoebel network between the crossover output and the driver terminals, conceptually shunting the driver. The reason is that this sort of response rise at very high frequency is generally at least partly due to the rising impedance of the driver when there is a resistor in series with the driver to pad the driver, which is typical with tweeters. The tweeter's share of the voltage increases and the resistor's share decreases, in accordance with the shift in their relative impedances. To counteract this you place a circuit in parallel with the driver, the impedance of which will fall with increase in frequency, thereby offsetting the rise in the driver impedance. With this particular tweeter the rise in the response is strong enough to suggest that it is partly due to a resonance on the surface of the metal dome, which is something that is rarely avoided with metal dome tweeters. You can't do anything about that, unless you replace the tweeter, however if you deem this to be a problem, the use of a Zoebel is almost certainly the most effective way to mitigate this peak.
And as always, he wants you to pay for his tube connectors, even though he doesn't have any genuine reason to think that they have any effect on the sound quality, or to tell you that they do, which he has done in the past. The only thing he has done here that is potentially of any genuine benefit is the suppression of that little bitty peak at 5 kHz, which you would most likely not ever hear.
is tube connectors bunch of snake oil? Danny can you chime in?
With 12 lb crossovers it would be much smarter to make the monitors with active crossovers with the power amps connected directly to the speakers.
No, that introduces way too many bottlenecks.
Surely there must be a measurement system that actually highlights these time domain and imaging differences you get with the quality of parts. I see so much commentary on-line about the "mysticism" involved in hi-end audiophile's focus on quality parts - yet if it is reproduced surely there must be some way of measuring it ? We have so much computing power available today - if it goes in your ears it should be possible to render that in some comparable form which shows all the differences
In the end it doesn't matter if you can measure it or not. What we are trying to achieve centers around what we can hear.
Here is another example. I am a racing guy. I do and have done a lot of drag racing and have had engines on a dyno for tuning and to see how much power they make. Top Fuel Dragsters and Funny Cars make approximately 11,000 horsepower. It is a value that is approximated because there are no dynos that exist that can measure the power. Just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean they make no power.
5:08 But you can't put that monstrocity into that small enclosure.
When we swap crossovers on and off of a speaker for A/B comparisons we keep the crossovers external.
Please do upgrade for KEF R300
Send one in and I'll take a look at them.
I know people have these and they are awesome
This is not a speaker that I would categorize as awesome.
@@dannyrichie9743 that's you , for some of us it's pretty awesome
@@harryburnett7086 If you think those sound awesome wait until you hear any DIY speaker kit that we offer. Every kit we offer is at a much higher level in just about every way.
@@dannyrichie9743 I have owned them since 2008 and I cannot recognise my speakers in your description.
I am very puzzled.
In the title you have them as B22 but they are actually M22, aren't they?
I am going to have to look now to see if somebody got at them before I bought them.
It wasn't a straightforward shop buy but was fro someone I lost contact with who was in the industry so they might have been hot rodded I guess.
@@2ridiculous41 My editor my have typo'ed the letters in the title.
Excellent
Looking at the website, doesn't look like Revel makes this one anymore.
I have owned a pair since 2008.
Revel Performa M22. Can the title be edited?
You spent several minutes talking about how overly high high frequency can be negative even if you can't hear it, then you leave it alone?? Strange choice. As far as measurement changes, I would think a crossover of equal value but better parts would still give you a different overall frequency response curve. The physical location of the crossover would be the same but shouldn't the variations that pass thru the parts be affected slightly? Or would the graph look exactly the same?
There is no easy way to fix a narrow band peak like that (at 20kHz). It is a driver problem, not a crossover problem.
No, changing crossover parts value for value but moving up in quality does not alter the frequency response. The signal is different, but a frequency response just measures how loud it is. How loud is not changed.
You are only looking at amplitude of the signal not on waveform. If you recording a sinewave of your system, you will see the waveform is slightly difference from one other. Moving up the frequency you will hear more like 5khz above or 2-3 second
Guys, don’t listen to all the voodoo. Some of best speakers in the world designed by the most respected engineers in the industry use switches in the signal path.
Removing insertion losses and cleaning up the signal transfer is not voodoo, and even some of the best speakers can often be improved.
Drier sheet fix.
Some of those Revel metal dome tweeters can drive you out of the room in less than 15 seconds especially if the speaker is powered by sand amps. After seeing this would have to wonder how many of the other revel models have tweeters have a similar issue.
What information is there at 19khz? Fatigue dont come from that region. Try lower. Below 10khz. I had faith in you, now no more.
Any frequency range with a 10db peak can cause fatigue.
Glad i didn't own these, because i'm treble sensitive🙄
Anyway thanks for posting😎👍👍
nor i like muddy bass😉
a shame what's inside these pricey speakers!🙄👎👎
You know I have the F206 and they are total crap..... I really regret that purchase. Almost 4k
We've been into the stand mounted model from that series, and it was not real great either.
If all you care about is sound quality, then a speaker with an active DSP crossover is far superior. Before you argue out of ignorance, do some research about it...
It doesn't work that way. I'm not ignorant. We've made those comparisons. Those DSP devices that are $500 to $600 can allow you to produce a flat response. However, the D/A converter, analog output stage, and power supply (sometimes a wall wart) are on about the same level as a $49 CD player from 20 years ago. They sound HORRIBLE. At the level we play the cheapest DAC I would consider as being not too bad is the Denafrips Ares 2 DAC at $1,150. Stepping up into higher end DAC's like those form Holo Audio can easily be 3 times that. The same goes for the computer used to send those files and how the files are handled. All of that has as much or greater effect on how things sound than the differences in parts quality of the crossovers. Right now the top level of performance is still reached by using a good digital source and passive filters, and that is hands down and by far, especially for the money. Trying to do an all digital at the highest level with good DAC's and amps will get you into the $20,000 plus range in a hurry.
Anaxa, what is the basis for our claim of "far superior"? A DSP can achieve a flat frequency response, or not, depending on user preference. Does DSP processing actually improve sound quality. All in the ear of the listener. We don't listen to graphs or spec sheets. Having worked with DSP systems far more expensive, complex and accurate than any used in audio I fully understand the limitations and tradeoffs of DSP.
I take no issue with individual choice to use DSP over a passive crossover. However, your broad brush statement is simply a reflection of personal preference based on either listening or selective "research".
@@jfritzy4358 I'm talking about an active DSP crossover like those seen in powered studio monitors. The active crossover allows for much finer control over the drivers than a passive crossover ever could - especially if you go beyond two-way. They also eliminate the problem of impedance matching. Given how expensive and cumbersome the massive coke can sized capacitor crossovers recommended on this channel are, going with with an active speaker is actually cheaper at that point and decent ones measure FAR better than 99% of passives. Buying a passive speaker nowadays is like choosing to heat a home with firewood when you can afford an HVAC system.
@@dannyrichie9743 What are you even talking about? You can buy a $400 pair of active DSP studio monitors like Kali LP6 v2 that measure flatter than 99% of passives at any price and you can buy your own $100 audibly transparent dac if needed. It seems like you have a God of the gaps type of argument to refute anything objective by claiming "your suggestion sounds bad, my product sounds good".
@@anaxa4883 Danny's designs have won awards. Seems he knows what he's talking about.
Who the hell says heck nowadays?
Texas people. :-)
@@dannyrichie9743 I know. I lived in Texas for many years. Many looooooong years.
Danny Scratching his chest 😅 don’t think he would be a good poker player